Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content count

    27,247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13,799 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,332 profile views
  1. Thanks. I was just too lazy to look it up. Besides I was writing a talk and put that off for too long.
  2. OK let's just cut to the chase here or there - whatever Look at this thread starting with this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70469-was-noah-really-a-preacher-of-righteousness/?do=findComment&comment=1209816460 Two major points made there 1- Prophets are fallible and 2- we do not have to worry about who is right or wrong in declaring doctrine because we have our own testimonies And then there is this from a very credible Mormon theologian- Blake Ostler http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/is-there-any-mormon-doctrine/ And then there is this very ambiguous church statement about what doctrine is- which says nothing in the context of 1 and 2 above. Even they cannot define it clearly- what does "consistently published" mean when what is consistently published may be in conflict with other statements which are "consistently published"? And where does it say "You have to believe the following"? https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine And when in doubt shall we try Doctrine and Covenants? Is that "canon" enough for you? D&C 10: THIS is where it states "You have to believe the following"- right here: AND we have the "Articles of Faith" as well https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng And we have this statement from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism- to which I will add emphasis http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine And then we have this defining article, perfectly new, from an apostle in conference declaring what I have said repeatedly here- Elder Christofferson, April 2012 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/the-doctrine-of-christ?lang=eng If that still doesn't do it for you, open the thread and I will glad to re-post it all there and then we can duke it out further.
  3. I went to the touring King Tut exhibit today in Los Angeles. I had forgotten much of what was in Nibbley's book the Egyptian Endowment, and it became extremely clear to me that that is exactly what the Egyptian ceremonies were about. The Egyptian ceremonies were about learning what one needs to do in order to pass the Sentinels who guard the gates to the home of the Gods and what one must know in order to become a god oneself, and the ceremonies needed to be Resurrected. I will have to reread the Book of the Dead. Absolutely fabulous stuff for any Mormon to know. Masonry is Child's Play.
  4. I would suggest you look up First Vision accounts. There have been many discussions about that subject here on this board there are articles on the fair Mormon site their are articles every where. I'm not sure that that's the best subject for this particular thread because there are so many elsewhere. Or you could start another thread based on that question. The bottom line is there are multiple First Vision accounts some of which mention it that way others mentioned two-personages. I know that if I give an account of something that happened in my childhood it is never the same twice. Sometimes I remember some details sometimes I skip those details. It depends on what the reason is for me to tell the story. Either that bothers you or it doesn't.
  5. Go for it and I will respond as I have on many threads. It's all there for anybody to see.
  6. mfbukowski

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    What you don't understand still is that we all receive personal revelation for ourselves meaning that in the context of our personal lives we are our own Prophets. The Prophet receives Revelation for the church because he is the person who does so but each of us is a profit or our lives. So it's not the general conference alone is Cannon everything that we personally receive is also Canon for us personally. Spelled by spell check.
  7. mfbukowski

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    Yet again a distinction without a difference. We actually follow both nearly equally which means following neither and both loosely. Again, no magisterium but the spirit. That's why it is hard for you to understand. You are too used to infallible pronouncements. Because we have no magisterium we are used to dealing with a couple of hundred years of ambiguity and contradictions. Alma 32 really does make us all Pragmatists. There is a reason I am here and not a Catholic. There really is a difference, and this is precisely it. I know you think I am a renegade but I'm not. The difference you see on this board is largely Utah versus the rest of the church. The rest of the church is made up primarily of converts. Converts by definition have to be able to follow the spirit or they would never find the church in the first place. Probably 40% of my stake are converts from Catholicism. The reason they are here is they could not understand the doctrine, and were looking for Doctrine they could understand, along with a lifestyle of commitment.
  8. mfbukowski

    new General Authority?

    That's a big IF that's not happening in this case.
  9. So holy cow we gotta rattle the missionary department to get out a BOM translation Those sweet folks are ready for it and here we are sitting on our hands. What the heck is that about??
  10. That's what YOU say. My point was what you finally say- that there are many explanations, all of which are irrelevant ultimately because of the history problem. Even if derivation was perfectly clear and undebatable, we still have the problem of whether or not the doctrine is "true". I make that point sometimes that if we had a video of the crucifixion that still would not prove that Christ died for MY SINS and therefore I am forgiven So now that makes them part of the fraud as well. Kind of like saying there was a "Passover Plot" involving the apostles in stealing Christ's body. Sorry you may believe that but not me. Yes, which means you also are not in a position to criticize it since you don't know what you are talking about. Ah OK then in the modern church Original Sin is a good thing then, right? It is for Mormons- that is the whole point. And yet of course you still have infant baptism if original sin is not such a big deal and a good thing. OK and that is the main point of the post, so we agree then on what was most important. And what is a mainstream Catholic understanding of the trinity or transubstantiation or even birth control? The other difference there is that Catholics are SUPPOSED to agree with those ideas as taught but Mormons are not expected to believe our doctrines as taught- simply to pass a temple recommend interview sincerely. We are encouraged to get our own testimonies not to follow the magisterium or an infallible pope. We have fallible prophets- so I think we are talking apples and oranges here. Good luck defining "mainstream" beliefs". NOT claiming such a thing??? You just said above "The masons got their ideas of anointing from the traditional churches, and Joseph Smith got his from the Masons." If you were not claiming that there is no point to the whole discussion. Why assert anything? Seems fairly useless. I was making a point- I did not expect to debate it with you. You wanna discuss, I discuss. You wanna debate, I debate. I say "I believe this" you say "Ok well I believe that". No debate. Yes I know it well. Why do you think I think this way?
  11. Well I guess by this logic all the annointings done in say, the Coptic Orthodox church originated with the masons? All the early leaders of the church were masons and members of the same lodge(s) Joseph was and none of them suggested that Joseph "lifted" the endowment from masonry. All these rites are ancient and the fact that they are similar does not show a direct causal relationship. The fact is- I have done a fair amount of study in this area and there were several "Christianized" lodges in Western New York and we do find "elements" of their ceremonies in the endowment but the endowment contains theology nothing like the non-theology of masonry. In other words the TEACHINGS derived from the endowment are completely different than those of masonry. For example the Catholic concept of "felix culpa" is not found in masonry yet of course it is a vital part of LDS theology AND an early teaching of Christianity which is completely lost in the present church, at least as far as I know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa To me, yet another evidence of a relic of doctrine found in our church and lost from Christianity in medieval times. Symbols are found in the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham from Egyptian sources which can be seen as EXACT replicas of temple symbols having nothing to do with masonry. There is a great book by a great LDS scholar which traces similarities between Egyptian ceremonies for the dead and the LDS temple. https://www.amazon.com/Message-Joseph-Smith-Papyri-Endowment/dp/159038539X I know you are not used to thinking in LDS terms but as "dispensationalists" we believe that throughout time there have been "Dispensations" of the gospel or Restorations and then subsequent apostasies. So the "Great Apostasy" which Catholics know about from Mormons is only ONE of others. On this thinking, many believe that the true endowment and gospel given to Adam in the first Dispensation may have come down in an apostate form to the Egyptians duplicating even more ancient rites, yet not getting it right. The concept here is exactly parallel to the assertion that the Catholic mass derives from an earlier "true endowment" from our point of view. So the fact of the matter is that to knowledgeable LDS folks, the similarities between masonic rituals and the endowment or that matter the Catholic mass, do not prove any kind one "source" for any of these ceremonies One might argue that Judaism originated in Zoroastrianism or even Babylonain rites just as much as that the Mormon endowment derived from masonry. The fact of the matter is that there is a great "stew" of ancient religious ideas which have come forward to this day in various forms and it is impossible to derive direct kinship between any of them, except where it is obvious in certain areas where synagogues became assemblages of Christians structured in "churches", or the Saturday Sabbath being moved to Sunday following the resurrection. THOSE Christian practices are pretty clearly derivative from Judaism as well as others, but in the more ancient cases the exact derivations become pretty ambiguous and blurry and difficult to see the source. I have always had an affinity for Zoroastrianism and actually due to my weirdness, could easily be persuaded that both Judaism and Christianity derived from Zoroastrianism. I have no problem with that idea. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170406-this-obscure-religion-shaped-the-west And then we have the cult of Mithras which originated in Zoroastrianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism And again here we have "mysteries" paralleling all kinds of sources around the time of the beginnings of Christianity Lest anyone call me an "apostate" which is the usual response when I post this stuff allow me to affirm I totally BELIEVE and PRACTICE FAITH in my life that the "Mormon Paradigm" which I regard as the true path for myself and indeed that this IS the "correct" church of Eloheim and Jehovah and the only true and living church on earth today. On the other hand, I can never be disillusioned because I don't think I am now "illusioned" by all the rival views of our church. I am a mystic- I live by testimony and HERE is where my testimony indicates I MUST be! But as also is well known hereabouts when it comes to historical justification of religion or saying that ANY historical evidence justifies a particular philosophy- that is just fantasy. History does not justify a philosophical belief, period. So bottom line - and here is the whole post in one line: "The Mormon Endowment came from Masonry" ???? Fergitaboutit!!
  12. mfbukowski

    Revelation vs Inspiration vs "Getting it right"

    Distinctions without a difference which are definable. "What shall I do, Lord?" "THAT!" "Thanks, Boss " That's it. Slicing, dicing, parsing impossible and therefore prohibited.
  13. Oh yeah And that very premise is NOT insulting, right? Others who may have been to the brink of suicide may disagree.
  14. Yes,I know, I get it. And you are right. More later!
×